Re: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE

[rweltman@netscape.com (Rob Weltman)]

David RR Webber wrote:

> Message text written by Rob Weltman
> >
>   It's irrelevant what uses the authors of the Apache SAX parser had in
> mind for it - it attempts to comply to the SAX 2.0 spec and can be used for
> anything you would want a SAX parser for. Apache is not involved in
> defining XML specs, just providing open source implementations of them.
>
>   My point was that there will generally available tools for handling XML
> Schema very soon, and you can already see the outlines.
>
> Rob
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> And my point is that I'm not about to use something that just thrown out
> there
> in the hope that someone will find it a use for it!!!
>
> If these are the 'you can already see the outlines' that I'm supposed to be
> buying into this is exactly why this will NOT get the job done for ebXML.
>
> Thanks for making this abundantly clear.  Putting a hundred programmers
> in a room and hoping something useful pops out.
>
> Bad plan.
>
> DW.

  Think of a SAX parser as a compiler. You need a compiler to turn source into executables, and you need a SAX parser (or something comparable) if you are processing XML in a streaming way. The SAX spec allows you to choose your parser from any compatible provider (Sun, IBM, Apache), much as a language spec allows you to choose a compiler from various vendors. The Apache provider now supports XML Schema, and I expect the others to do so as well. You can use Apache for development now, and Sun or IBM later, if you want to.

  SAX is very, very widely deployed - hardly something waiting for a use.

Rob